I'm a full time Senior Engineer at a venture backed software services company (~150 people). I've been here about 2.5 years (total 6 years exp).
In Christmas 2016, there were a round of redundancies and the company shrunk by about 20%. This was explained to use as a measure to make sure the company could survive until the next funding round and make the argument from investors for a larger sum.
But life goes on and we were told that things would continue as normal. I had my review in February and was granted a 3% salary increase (as opposed to 10% the previous 2 years)
This was understandable given the hard finances on the company and redundancies being such a close memory.
2 Months passed and I didn't see the increase in my payslips, I was told I would be given "back-pay" on these amounts for any I missed. April just rolled around and I was told that the CEO has made an 'executive decision' to without these raises until the next round of funding.
The logic being that he can argue for a larger sum if he strangles the flow of cash in certain areas. With the promise of revisiting the issue after funding.
This is what my colleagues have called an 'indian giver'
Obviously I'm very disturbed by this event obviously as there's nothing to stop him from changing his mind and doing another round of redundancies.
After some follow up questions he explained that it was the norm and other employees have received the same. Perks in the company seem to be untouched, but are still on the chopping block.
He seems to believe that this is perfectly normal behavior.
TL;DR Is it common practice for CEO's to revert decisions on raises promised to employees?
I'm halfway between: A) Leaving and abandoning what appears to be a sinking ship or B) Stick it out and hope for some sort of progression later in the companies life and that my loyalty will be rewarded.